add_tablix_column

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description fully handles behavioral disclosure. It reveals that column_name must be unique report-wide, expression goes inside the TextRun, the behavior for rows (first row header, middle blank, last row expression), and that it inserts a TablixMember. This is comprehensive for a mutation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single paragraph with multiple sentences, each adding value without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the main action and efficiently covers defaults and behavior.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, no output schema), the description covers most important aspects: row behavior, defaults, hierarchy insertion. It does not mention the return value or side effects on other report elements, but it is fairly complete for the intended use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates well. It explains column_name (unique report-wide), expression (placed in textbox), header_text (default = column_name), position (0-indexed, default append), and width (default 1in). It does not explain path or tablix_name, but these are likely understood from context. Overall, it adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's action: 'Append (or insert) a column into a tablix'. It specifies the verb ('Append'/'insert') and the resource ('column into a tablix'). The description distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_static_column and add_subtotal_column by detailing its behavior with rows and column hierarchy.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear usage context: it explains how to use the tool, including defaults for position, width, and header_text. It also describes the behavior for different row types (first, middle, last). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives like add_static_column, which would have improved guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.